The One Bite Rule.... - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Sunshine · #1 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Is the 'One Bite Rule" really a good one, or should we expect pet owners to ALWAYS be responsible for their animals? Dog threads are second only to sex threads on some forums, and I don't recall seeing any discussions on this topic. How emotional are you about the bad behaviors of pets?

DOG BITE LAW - the most trusted and extensive resource for dog bite victims, parents of victims, and dog owners needing legal information.

Quote:

The first time that a canine attacks a human being, the paramount legal issue is the extent to which the state having jurisdiction adheres to the English common law pertaining to injuries inflicted by domestic animals.

The common law shielded the owner of a domestic animal from civil liability to the first victim of each of his animals. This absolving principle came to be known variously as the "one bite rule," the "first bite rule," or the "first bite free" rule.

However, it has been repeatedly stated in the court decisions that the name "one-bite rule" is a misnomer, in that the rule applies to any injury whether or not it was caused by a bite, and that proof of the dangerous propensity of the animal does not require the existence of a prior bite even in a biting case.

The rationale of the one bite rule was that domestic animals by definition were not injurious, and therefore liability could be predicated only on the defendant's knowledge that a particular animal had a propensity to behave in manner that was injurious to humans. Again, the rule applied to any type of injury, whether or not a bite.

The rule provided not only a shield for the animal's owner but also a sword for its victim, because it justified compensating any victim -- after the first one -- who was injured by the same dangerous propensity. The owner, keeper or harborer of the dog thus was held strictly liable when his domestic animal injured a subsequent person the same way it hurt a prior one.

English common law strict liability for canine inflicted injuries therefore was founded on the defendant's scienter (i.e., knowledge) of his dog's dangerousness. For that reason, this is often referred to as the "scienter cause of action," or as "common law strict liability." Since the gist of the tort, "is the keeping of a thing known to be dangerous, one who keeps or harbors an animal owned by another may be liable, if he has such knowledge. A bailee with scienter is of course liable." Prosser or Torts, chapter 10, section 57, page 441. The scienter cause of action can be directed against not only the dog's owner, but also its harborer or keeper:

"A person, although not the owner of a vicious dog, may make himself liable to others by knowingly keeping or harboring the dog upon his premises, after knowledge of his vicious propensities, and this is true even when such keeping is without the consent and against the wishes of the animal's owner. ... The owner of an animal is the person to whom it belongs. Whether or not a person is a keeper depends upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each individual case. A man may own an animal and yet not be its keeper. The word 'keeper' is equivalent to 'the person who harbors.' Harboring means protecting. So one who treats a dog as living at his house, and undertakes to control his actions is the owner or keeper within the meaning of the law; but the casual presence of an animal on his premises, if not so treated, does not constitute him such owner or keeper." (3 C.J.S. 1266, § 165.)

The one-bite rule underlies civil and criminal actions in modern America. When a person is bitten by a dog, 18 American states (listed in Legal Rights of Dog Bite Victims in the USA) use the one-bite rule to determine legal liability. The other 32 and the District of Columbia have abrogated or modified the one-bite rule by so-called "dog bite statutes." (The list of those states also is in Legal Rights of Dog Bite Victims in the USA.)

The dog bite statutes vary greatly. They might or might not apply to keepers and harborers as well as owners, and to injuries by means other than biting. They might provide for full compensation, or payment of just medical bills, or payment of medical bills and other economic losses (like loss of income), or double compensation under some circumstances. Some do not apply during the day, or if the dog owner posted a "bad dog sign," or if the victim had provoked the dog weeks before. Even though they are worded as strict liability laws, moreover, the court decisions permit a variety of defenses that vary from state to state. If the state law strict liability does not apply to a particular defendant, or does not provide sufficient compensation, the victim can still assert the scienter cause of action, because it is always available in every state.

In addition to civil laws, criminal laws which apply to the owners, keepers and harborers of dogs are generally based upon the one-bite principle, in that criminal liability usually does not result from dog attacks unless the dog previously engaged in similar behavior.

Video of Attorney Kenneth Phillips testifying against the one-bite rule can be seen at the website of the Tennessee State Legislature. The video will start in Windows Media Player. Several witnesses testify, and some of the footage is graphic and upsetting. Phillips' segment begins at minute 38, his presentation about the one-bite rule lasts 5 minutes, and his entire testimony runs approximately 12 minutes.

DOG BITE LAW - the One Bite Rule

ThorHammer · #2 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Sex! Oh wait, nevermind.

TheLastBoyScout · #3 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Is the 'One Bite Rule" really a good one, or should we expect pet owners to ALWAYS be responsible for their animals? Dog threads are second only to sex threads on some forums, and I don't recall seeing any discussions on this topic. How emotional are you about the bad behaviors of pets?

DOG BITE LAW - the most trusted and extensive resource for dog bite victims, parents of victims, and dog owners needing legal information.

I don't have an opinion on exactly how it should be legislated, but I do believe a dog owner should always be held responsible for their dog.

How can we expect dog owners to act responsibly if there is no clear deterrent for negligence?

Steve · #4 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

I have no problem with that law.

My concern would be with animals that react to protect their owner...

iamwhatiseem · #5 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Well since just today an 8 yr old was badly attacked and required two surgeries by yet another pit bull....I believe there should be extended penalities including manslaughter with serious prison terms.
Seem over the top? Try telling that to the parents of a dead child who was playing outside and a neighbors pit escaped and crushes her skull.
You own one of them f*cking things...you accept the penalty that may come with it.

Steve · #6 (**permalink**) 08-15-2009

It's a difficult problem.

I don't disagree that an owner should be responsible for the actions of a dog, however we need to consider what causes the dog to act.

A friend of mine has a Pit Bull. You can go up to that dog and pull its' ears, lay on it; do whatever you want to it, and the damn thing will still lick you to death.

Strike my friend, though, and that dog will be on you like a bum on a sandwich. I have another friend who has a Yellow Lab which would react the exact same way.

In such a situation, there are those who would call for the Pit Bull to be put down, yet they would be quick to dismiss the action of the Lab and say that the dog was just protecting the owner.

I'll quickly acknowledge that Pit Bulls seem to have a propensity for being vicious. But I don't think that propensity should be the deciding factor in determining whether or not an owner should be held more responsible for the dog's actions than the owner of a different breed.

In cases where a Pit Bull gets out and kills another dog or a child, well, a dog like that can't be killed quickly enough. But with Pit Bulls, all people need to hear is that one bit someone, and they conclude that the dog bit the person simply because it's a "vicious" breed. People tend to not be willing to consider any mitigating circumstances...

iamwhatiseem · #7 (**permalink**) 08-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

It's a difficult problem.

I don't disagree that an owner should be responsible for the actions of a dog, however we need to consider what causes the dog to act.

A friend of mine has a Pit Bull. You can go up to that dog and pull its' ears, lay on it; do whatever you want to it, and the damn thing will still lick you to death.

Strike my friend, though, and that dog will be on you like a bum on a sandwich. I have another friend who has a Yellow Lab which would react the exact same way.

In such a situation, there are those who would call for the Pit Bull to be put down, yet they would be quick to dismiss the action of the Lab and say that the dog was just protecting the owner.

I'll quickly acknowledge that Pit Bulls seem to have a propensity for being vicious. But I don't think that propensity should be the deciding factor in determining whether or not an owner should be held more responsible for the dog's actions than the owner of a different breed.

In cases where a Pit Bull gets out and kills another dog or a child, well, a dog like that can't be killed quickly enough. But with Pit Bulls, all people need to hear is that one bit someone, and they conclude that the dog bit the person simply because it's a "vicious" breed. People tend to not be willing to consider any mitigating circumstances...

I disagree.
According to the CDC there are approximately 6.5 million dog bites a year, and only about 15% require any medical attention at all.
The reason is obvious, most dogs bite as a warning or bite a little too harsh during play.
That is most dogs.
Presa Canarios - a breed line that includes Rottweilers and Pits amount to 3/4 of all human fatalities by dog attacks...of those deaths - 82% are CHILDREN. That is a very, very disturbing figure...why? Obvious, the dog could not see the small child as a threat - instead it saw the child as something it wanted to kill.
These are facts. And anyone who owns a dog that is PROVEN to be a breed that targets small children - MUST be held accountable if/when it occurs.

Steve · #8 (**permalink**) 08-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

These are facts. And anyone who owns a dog that is PROVEN to be a breed that targets small children - MUST be held accountable if/when it occurs.

I just want to make sure I understand you correctly:

If my buddy's Pit Bull was to attack someone who was attacking my buddy, you would hold my buddy responsible for the injuries sustained by the attacker?

Commodore · #9 (**permalink**) 08-15-2009

Instead of blaming the dog for occasionally acting like an animal, why not just fine the owner for not maintaining sufficient space between the dog and anyone else. This enforces a healthy respect for the animal from the owner and others, and doesn't give idiots the key to the mint for acting like idiots, which I'm sure is the cause for most bites.

wooyarn · #10 (**permalink**) 08-15-2009

Until about 6 months ago I had 3 Rot/Labs. I now have 2. They were all well behaved and very protective and very big. My 6 grandkids were visiting and one dog bit my 3YO grand son on the leg. When we got back from the Dr's house, 2 stitches and no real damage. I took my .45 and put a ball round thru the dogs head. I didn't ask nor cared what the child did or didn't do, I will not have a dog that bites a child.

Steve · #11 (**permalink**) 08-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by wooyarn

Until about 6 months ago I had 3 Rot/Labs. I now have 2. They were all well behaved and very protective and very big. My 6 grandkids were visiting and one dog bit my 3YO grand son on the leg. When we got back from the Dr's house, 2 stitches and no real damage. I took my .45 and put a ball round thru the dogs head. I didn't ask nor cared what the child did or didn't do, I will not have a dog that bites a child.

Would you have done the same if the dog had bit an adult that had been taunting it?

wooyarn · #12 (**permalink**) 08-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Would you have done the same if the dog had bit an adult that had been taunting it?

An Adult and Child are two diff things. If the adult was taunting and teasing the dog, then no. If the adult was doing niether and the dog attacked, then yes I would shoot the dog.

Steve · #13 (**permalink**) 08-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by wooyarn

An Adult and Child are two diff things. If the adult was taunting and teasing the dog, then no. If the adult was doing niether and the dog attacked, then yes I would shoot the dog.

A child and an adult are two different things to you and me.

To a dog, however, they only know that some biped is taunting them, and they want them to stop. The quickest way to get them to stop is to strike back.

I'm not taking issue with your decision to shoot the dog; I'd have done the same. I'd shoot the dog regardless if it was an adult or a child, assuming the adult or child wasn't taunting or teasing the animal. If either was, I wouldn't shoot the dog.

If the three year old was pulling the dog's ears or its' tail (you say you don't know why the dog bit him), what would you expect the dog to do? The most docile animal on the planet will strike back in such a situation.

To me, your reasoning seems inconsistent...

wooyarn · #14 (**permalink**) 08-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

A child and an adult are two different things to you and me.

To a dog, however, they only know that some biped is taunting them, and they want them to stop. The quickest way to get them to stop is to strike back.

I'm not taking issue with your decision to shoot the dog; I'd have done the same. I'd shoot the dog regardless if it was an adult or a child, assuming the adult or child wasn't taunting or teasing the animal. If either was, I wouldn't shoot the dog.

If the three year old was pulling the dog's ears or its' tail (you say you don't know why the dog bit him), what would you expect the dog to do? The most docile animal on the planet will strike back in such a situation.

To me, your reasoning seems inconsistent...

By diff. I mean the adult should know better then to tease a dog, a 3 yo doesn't. These dog's are 7 yo and have been around all my GK's and in the past and since, they will just get up and leave the area when they get tired of the kids messing with them. I wasn't willing to take the chance of something worse happening.

Steve · #15 (**permalink**) 08-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by wooyarn

By diff. I mean the adult should know better then to tease a dog, a 3 yo doesn't.

Right.

But the dog doesn't see the difference. The dog doesn't know that the adult knows better and the child doesn't. All it knows is that its' tail is being pulled. Yet, you're willing to shoot the dog for reacting how it would in the case of either one taunting it, only when the child does it.

That's inconsistent...

Quote:

These dog's are 7 yo and have been around all my GK's and in the past and since, they will just get up and leave the area when they get tired of the kids messing with them. I wasn't willing to take the chance of something worse happening.

Which would suggest that the kid did something to the dog to cause the dog to react as a dog will react. Something so removed from the norm for your dogs should be, I would think, something that would require a little investigation before killing the dog.

if the kid was eating a piece of watermelon while sitting in the sandbox and the dog came up and bit him, I have no problem with shooting the dog. If the kid was trying to ram the piece of watermelon up the dog's ass, I don't know that I would expect the dog to act any differently than it did...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode